Splosh! in The Sun on Monday?

[easy_as_]

Actually, I think we can all blame 'Jim'. Look at the comments on this article from 2 August:

Indeed, well done Jim . . . good work fellah, there is nothing like a big neon flashing sign to show the way ahead . . . not to mention a great big comedy klaxon sound effect to go with it . . . perhaps it needed some yellow bricks to pave the way a little more clearly and some dancing Munchkins to lead off in the right direction . . . .

To save the effort of clicking giving their website hits, I wonder if I can reproduce his comment in full here . . .

" I love Katie! She is a big star on the Gilly's silly house and Splosh websites! I hope Lembit like been covered in custard and getting a pie in his face! "

By Jim. Posted August 2 2009 at 1:10 PM.

Maybe he thought it was an innocent piece of advertising for the site !!!!! ?????

[Hayley]

Yup, I saw that too. I think it was well meant but naive. Whoever wrote/sold the story didn't do their research very well either as they seem to think the pictures came from Splosh! magazine. And I would have used the spanking pic, wouldn't you?

Oh well, no harm done (yet) just somebody making money out of us again. We'd appreciate it though if everyone kept a low profile on this for the time being.


Then again perhaps now my boobs are a bit bigger I should audition for Page 3! I could be their first MILMU (a Mother You'd Like to Muck Up).

Hayley

[muckypup]

We'd appreciate it though if everyone kept a low profile on this for the time being.

Do you mean not discuss it on here or what?

"Saucy" - hilarious! And yes I would have used the spanking one - as with all great WAM you can't really even tell its her from that picture.

[BillShipton]

Nothing wrong with discussing it here. We both agree it isn't a good idea to rattle The Sun's cage by posting on their site or promoting it outside here or UMD.

[osbaldeston]

It's very similar to the coverage that Aisleyne's Gungegirls pic got when she was on Big Brother. It's intriguing that they published both pictures without trying to stir up any synthetic moral outrage - perhaps a sign of changing times.

Far more important though is that Katie looked utterly fantastic both wet & messy.....

[muckypup]

It's intriguing that they published both pictures without trying to stir up any synthetic moral outrage - perhaps a sign of changing times.

That's a good point, I hate that faux outrage at someone visiting a strip club, or being into bondage or some other perfectly normal adventure where I'm sure the "journalist" has been involved in much more salacious pursuits!

[easy_as_]

I suppose we ought to say hello to any new folk who have looked in here or are about to, since the article was published !!!! After all, it's only polite !

" Hello, we are all a friendly bunch here really . . . ! " *** waves ***

[BillShipton]

If they've come here, they haven't bought anything! Grumble!!

Katie and I have all sorts of theories about what happened with the story (remember they contacted her before it appeared) but they are too boring to share here and it looks like we are egging it which we really aren't. In fact the story was so small, two friends of mine who knew about it missed it completely! So it has been a storm in a C-cup so far (always good to get that old one out again).

Bill

[Etonman]

I think the average newspaper reader these days (any paper, not just The Sun) has become so desensitised to all the antics and eccentricities of politicians and celebs that something like this would hardly raise an eyebrow.

But I agree that it's wrong for someone to benefit financially from pretended indignation about something which isn't really a matter of public concern. It really annoys me when certain papers have a page of ranting and indignation about some supposed indiscretion, but with a detailed desciption accompanied by all the "sordid" photos illustrating what went on! Double standards!

[T-34]

In fact the story was so small, two friends of mine who knew about it missed it completely! So it has been a storm in a C-cup so far (always good to get that old one out again).

Bill

I missed it, but only because I haven't been short of anything to wipe my arse on lately

[mr angry]

What do you expect from the worst newspaper in the world, spewing its toxic pollutant over the journalistic landscape like some of cultural Chernobyl...

Love Katie, she's gorgeous

[Richard]

Katie is certainly gorgeous but I'm not sure if this will tempt me to vote LibDem .

[Richard]

Oh well, no harm done (yet) just somebody making money out of us again. We'd appreciate it though if everyone kept a low profile on this for the time being.

Perhaps it would be an idea to have some sort of 'safe word' system for threads which the administrators don't want too many comments on ( split infinitive). A 'sticky' thread explaining that no further postings could be set up, only accessible by members and triggered by anyone trying to post on the delicate one, automatically diverting them to the explanation. This would mean that only signed-in members could access the sticky and could know the secret. I hope that would satisfy their curiosity whilst keeping everything under wraps.

I realise that sounds complicated and I don't know how to do it but I'm sure the boffins at 'head office' could manage something!

[BillShipton]

We said earlier we have no problem with people commenting on this thread just not on News of the World ones or writing to The Sun saying "Lets see more!" Either way it seems to have blown over now and whoever it was is probably spending his tip-off fee.

[Invicta]

to be honest, it seems to be little more than a flimsy excuse to publish a topless pic of Katie- as Bill said, nothing but a storm in a C-cup